A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see you're repeating the argument used by others on this forum that when I make a statement it is merely an assumption.

The irony is that your previous two sentences, which you presented as fact, are merely assumptions on your part.

Your allegation that I invented what I wrote is untrue and shows what a low class of individual you are.

What I’m doing PI is asking you to provide evidence for a claim that you yourself have made. Without evidence to back this up then it’s simply an assumption on your part. It really can’t be clearer or simpler than that. If something cannot be proven it cannot be accepted as true. Why is this a difficult concept for you?

[The Baron]

provide the quote of Sagar saying he saw a man leaving the square?
Or if you mean he claimed he had heard such provide that quote

Cox did indeed say, a murder took place while one of their best was at the top off the street, but he does not mention Anyone actually seeing a man leave, nor does he state it was Mitre Square.

But lets , for the sake of debate, assume Sagar did say such..Why would it not be credible?
Is it that YOU, simply don't want to believe such.

Feb. 9th, The Seattle Daily Times:

"We believe," he said, "that he came nearest to being captured after the Mitre Square murder in which the woman Kelly was the victim. She had been detained in Bishopsgate police station until 1 a. m. At 1:45 a. m. she was dead. A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court. Continuing on his patrol he came across the woman's body. He blew his whistle, and sent the other officers who rushed up in pursuit, the only thing to guide them being the sound of retreating footsteps. The sounds were followed to King's Block in the model dwellings in Stoney Lane, but the search got no further."


TB

[Elamarna]

What I wrote was:

he [Sagar] has been quoted on this website and others as claiming that such a sighting took place.

As I said, the sighting is not credible.

provide the quote of Sagar saying he saw a man leaving the square?
Or if you mean he claimed he had heard such provide that quote

Cox did indeed say, a murder took place while one of their best was at the top off the street, but he does not mention Anyone actually seeing a man leave, nor does he state it was Mitre Square.

But lets , for the sake of debate, assume Sagar did say such..Why would it not be credible?
Is it that YOU, simply don't want to believe such.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How many more times must I say this.
In June 1892, in the press article I quoted above he implies he knows.
That's 1892!

The 1895 comment is that the man as died.
These are different comments.

Why wait? because they did not have all the evidence until that date .
I made that clearv in a previous post too.

Thanks for clarifying that.

That still leaves the question: if a positive identification was made in July 1890, why does Anderson not become convinced of the suspect's guilt until 1892?

It is not, I suggest, believable.

Some defenders of Swanson here have said that he may, in his advancing years, have become confused about when the suspect died.

As I have noted, getting the year of death wrong by three decades looks like more than mere confusion.

Anderson saying in 1895 that the man had died means either that the man really had died by then or both Anderson and Swanson were wrong.

In the light of these facts, I can understand why you consider the possibility that the suspect was someone other than Aaron Kosminski.

What I do not understand is why you should ever have considered the possibility that the suspect was Aaron Kosminski.

[Elamarna]

You are mistaken on Sagar, he was a City detective watching a man for a period of time... He is not linked to seeing a man leaving Mitre Square.


Well, he has been quoted on this website and others as claiming that such a sighting took place.

Are you saying all those quotes are wrong?



So in mid 1890, I do not think anyone was sure, but I believe that Swanson and Anderson had a suspicion, that they needed to confirm.

I speculate an ID was held, the suspect was identified and then in late 1890 Early 91, the circle I spoke of decided not to go to trial.


If Anderson knew in mid-1890 of a positive identification, then why would he not have become convinced of the suspect's guilt till 1895?

Anderson and Swanson were clear that the prosecution case depended on the testimony of the witness; why then would they wait until as late as 1891 before deciding not to prosecute the suspect?

How many more times must I say this.
In June 1892, in the press article I quoted above he implies he knows.
That's 1892!

The 1895 comment is that the man as died.
These are different comments.

Why wait? because they did not have all the evidence until that date .
I made that clearv in a previous post too.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please provide a link to a quote that Sagar claimed to see a man leave Mitre Square.

The claim that a policeman saw such, I covered in some detail. But it's not Sagar.

What I wrote was:

he [Sagar] has been quoted on this website and others as claiming that such a sighting took place.

As I said, the sighting is not credible.


I repeat the point I made in my previous message to you:

If Anderson knew in mid-1890 of a positive identification, then why would he not have become convinced of the suspect's guilt till 1895?

[Elamarna]

You are mistaken on Sagar, he was a City detective watching a man for a period of time... He is not linked to seeing a man leaving Mitre Square.


Well, he has been quoted on this website and others as claiming that such a sighting took place.

Are you saying all those quotes are wrong?



So in mid 1890, I do not think anyone was sure, but I believe that Swanson and Anderson had a suspicion, that they needed to confirm.

I speculate an ID was held, the suspect was identified and then in late 1890 Early 91, the circle I spoke of decided not to go to trial.


If Anderson knew in mid-1890 of a positive identification, then why would he not have become convinced of the suspect's guilt till 1895?

Anderson and Swanson were clear that the prosecution case depended on the testimony of the witness; why then would they wait until as late as 1891 before deciding not to prosecute the suspect?

Please provide a link to a quote that Sagar claimed to see a man leave Mitre Square.

The claim that a policeman saw such, I covered in some detail. But it's not Sagar.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’re not publishing a ‘source’ for this because there isn’t one, as your second sentence proves. What you are in effect saying is that because Lawende said that he had the appearance of a sailor then his coat ‘must’ have been one that sailors wore even though there is no evidential basis for this. Its simply an assumption on your part. That the man was wearing a peaked cap is likely to have been the reason why Lawende mentioned the appearance of a sailor. Anyone could have bought a peaked cap, but to suggest that we can deduce that the man was a sailor purely because he wore one is nothing short of farcical.

You have invented the connection between the coat and a sailor. It doesn’t exist and you know it.

I see you're repeating the argument used by others on this forum that when I make a statement it is merely an assumption.

The irony is that your previous two sentences, which you presented as fact, are merely assumptions on your part.

Your allegation that I invented what I wrote is untrue and shows what a low class of individual you are.

[The Baron]

I made the above points in # 118, to which you did not reply because you couldn't counter the facts I have cited.

Go to the other thread again, to the post 393 and you will see that I responded, but again that only shows the level of attention you pay when discussing with others, it is not like you are trying to learn something new, you want to pose your opinion as the most valid one and thats all.

And your post above shows again your usual trick of moving the goal post when caught in error

I posted this quote:

""Whilst Morris looked for his lamp, Watkins noted the time as 1.45am by his own watch"

He entered Mitre Square at around 1 44, but the exact timing he did was AFTER he found the body and it was 1.45"

And your only 3 minutes killing window is not a fact, it is your imagination and denial that Timing simply was not that syncronizied in 1888.

The 10 minutes could have been 15 minutes, and he could have killed her in 3 minutes or less for that matter

The 3 minutes window is a joke for any sincere researcher.

you didn't even know who 'House' is


TB

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have already been caught making two bad mistakes.ik


As I wrote:

Lawende saw Eddowes with a man about 3 minutes before she was murdered.


Your response was to write:

How about you start by reading the basic information of the case first?


You claimed the correct figure was 10 minutes - a physical and logical impossibly.
;

Is there a parallel ripper case that you’re reading about? How do you arrive at Lawende seeing Eddowes 3 minutes before she was murdered? Why are you so confident about everything? Everything isn’t black and white in the real world.

Lawende reckoned that he’d seen her at 1.35 - we can’t be sure how accurate this was, a +or - should be allowed. It could have been 1.33 or 1.34 or it could have been 1.36 - we don’t know. So how can you?
Watkin found her body at 1.44. - How can we be sure that it want actually 1.45 or 1.46?
Harvey said that he went down Church Passage at 1.40 but later in the same paragraph said 1.41 or 1.42 - he took his time from the PO clock so we know that he had no watch. How accurate was the PO clock? Who knows be we know that clocks weren’t synchronised then so his time also has to have a reasonable + or - allowance. Or how do we know that he didn’t skimp on his duty and not bother going down Church Passage? Was he honest? All we do know is that he was dismissed from the Force six months later. So maybe he wasn’t very rigorous in his duties?

Why do you confidently say 3 minutes? It might have been 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven't invented it or made it up, as you allege, and as I said soon after I started posting here, I am not publishing all my sources yet.

Anyone can see that my claim that a pepper-and-salt coloured loose-fitting jacket, which was worn by the suspect, was commonly worn by sailors, accords with Lawende's statement that the suspect had the appearance of a sailor.

There is, therefore, nothing far-fetched about my assertion, and certainly no rational reason to call it an invention.

You’re not publishing a ‘source’ for this because there isn’t one, as your second sentence proves. What you are in effect saying is that because Lawende said that he had the appearance of a sailor then his coat ‘must’ have been one that sailors wore even though there is no evidential basis for this. Its simply an assumption on your part. That the man was wearing a peaked cap is likely to have been the reason why Lawende mentioned the appearance of a sailor. Anyone could have bought a peaked cap, but to suggest that we can deduce that the man was a sailor purely because he wore one is nothing short of farcical.

You have invented the connection between the coat and a sailor. It doesn’t exist and you know it.

Another point which you ignore in you rush to make the man a sailor is - how can you be sure that the man wore his everyday clothes when he went out intending to kill? You can’t know this. None of us can. The man might have been a sailor, he might have been a carpenter, he might have been a cheese salesman. We don’t know who he was so we can’t say who he wasn’t.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have been asking him to say how a sailor looks like and he didn't answer..

Instead, he posted a photo of miserable quality to show how tailors look like.

That of course because he gives a great amount of attention to what is being written and asked

After being exposed that he was the one who protested that Aaron couldn't speak English, he tried the oldest trick in the book, to change the goal post, and brought another subject to the table and try mixing the cards so we won't be able to focus on his errors, that if it was not Aaron then the point of him being schizophrenic becomes irrelevant, Wooh what do you know, as if the Kosminski described by the Police whether Aaron or not, was not an insane and sexual maniac..

He will run in circles and try his best to avoid being caught in mistakes.

TB

You have already been caught making two bad mistakes.


As I wrote:

Lawende saw Eddowes with a man about 3 minutes before she was murdered.


Your response was to write:

How about you start by reading the basic information of the case first?


You claimed the correct figure was 10 minutes - a physical and logical impossibility.


Then, when I wrote:


Pc Watkins found the body at 1.44


You wrote:


Wrong, he found the body at 1.45



As I then pointed out:


Here is what Pc Watkins testified:


I was continually patrolling my beat from ten o'clock up to half-past one. I noticed nothing unusual up till 1.44, when I saw the body.


He said 1.44 - not 1.45, as you claim he said.




As I have said before, what has actually been happening is that you and a few other members have been trying repeatedly to prove that I am wrong about facts and alleging that I misrepresent opinion as fact.


But it is you who have been proven wrong repeatedly.


I made the above points in # 118, to which you did not reply because you couldn't counter the facts I have cited.

So instead, you made your snide comments in # 160, which shows the kind of person you are.

[The Baron]

I have been asking him to say how a sailor looks like and he didn't answer..

Instead, he posted a photo of miserable quality to show how tailors look like.

That of course because he gives a great amount of attention to what is being written and asked

After being exposed that he was the one who protested that Aaron couldn't speak English, he tried the oldest trick in the book, to change the goal post, and brought another subject to the table and try mixing the cards so we won't be able to focus on his errors, that if it was not Aaron then the point of him being schizophrenic becomes irrelevant, Wooh what do you know, as if the Kosminski described by the Police whether Aaron or not, was not an insane and sexual maniac..

He will run in circles and try his best to avoid being caught in mistakes.

TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Where is your evidence that a salt and pepper coat was in any way connected to sailors? If there’s no evidence of this……which there isn’t….it means that you made it up. Simple as that. It’s why you keep ignoring it.

I haven't invented it or made it up, as you allege, and as I said soon after I started posting here, I am not publishing all my sources yet.

Anyone can see that my claim that a pepper-and-salt coloured loose-fitting jacket, which was worn by the suspect, was commonly worn by sailors, accords with Lawende's statement that the suspect had the appearance of a sailor.

There is, therefore, nothing far-fetched about my assertion, and certainly no rational reason to call it an invention.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are mistaken on Sagar, he was a City detective watching a man for a period of time... He is not linked to seeing a man leaving Mitre Square.


Well, he has been quoted on this website and others as claiming that such a sighting took place.

Are you saying all those quotes are wrong?



So in mid 1890, I do not think anyone was sure, but I believe that Swanson and Anderson had a suspicion, that they needed to confirm.

I speculate an ID was held, the suspect was identified and then in late 1890 Early 91, the circle I spoke of decided not to go to trial.


If Anderson knew in mid-1890 of a positive identification, then why would he not have become convinced of the suspect's guilt till 1895?

Anderson and Swanson were clear that the prosecution case depended on the testimony of the witness; why then would they wait until as late as 1891 before deciding not to prosecute the suspect?